About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
the sequestered . but did so by impacted the pentagon less heavily than the sequestered it. but divided government, i think you get the question. president said he does not want to change the money for the pentagon. mitch mcconnell said we are not raising taxes to ransom the pentagon budget cuts. a lot of focus has been on the pentagon but these are more concerned about the $50 billion in domestic discretionary spending restraint every year. you did to the republican study committee. the announced all a thing worse than sequestration would not be having savings. this stampede attempted did not take. he denied a demand that the defense budget be remain untouched, either of the public opinion or the house. i think sequestration happens. the only thing i could imagine is if they -- the r's and d's would both rather take it out of entitlements rather than the annual budgets. could they cut a deal where they save the same amount of money but out of entitlements? that is the only compromise i could see. then you get to the grand bargain idea. it seems every time i have these conversations were people as
for the pentagon and fluctuations in global energy prices can have dramatic, dramatic effects on defense spending. for every $10 increase in a barrel of oil it costs the american military annually an extra $1.3 billion. recognizing the potential instability that d.o.d.'s current energy needs can cause, military experts from across the various branches of the armed services have begun looking at ways to cut energy use and find energy alternative. now, i continued to hear all of this discussion about how this is somehow a green agenda and it's a suber havesive plot and it's being forced on a resistant president. and i just want to take a minute or two, mr. president, and say i don't think anything could be further from the truth and just wanted to describe for a moment why i feel that way. first, those who oppose defense energy initiatives often argue in today's fiscal environment, the country can't afford to waste money on energy programs when it's necessary to provide for our nation's security. i don't believe, mr. president, it is an either/or proposition, because my view is that an investment i
government is money borrowed to sustain food stamps as well as the pentagon. we ought to be thinking of that in terms of our values and our future. let me speak to a couple of elements here that i think progressives should keep in mind. progressives cannot afford to stand on the sidelines in this fiscal cliff debate. important critical decisions will be made soon that will affect this country for 10 years. i think we need to be a part of this conversation. we need to be open to some topics and some issues that are painful and hard for us to talk about. we cannot stand by the sidelines in denial that this is ever going to engage us in the things we value. we cannot be so night -- not leave to believe that just taxing the rich will solve our problems. i believe that is an important part of a solution. we have to look to reform and change that is significant, that preserves many of the values and programs that brought us political life, and we cannot believe that merely ignoring these programs or not engaging will solve the problem. pick up any of the newspapers and look for the full-pa
of power today, it is the size of the pentagon and those devil is actually had a bigger problem than us. but i would be interested in when you're thinking about policy, do you look at that the source of leverage, or did this restrain american options in terms of what you can do? >> with respect to the deficit and debt of the national security liability, we need our senior leadership and the ability to take it on. we have an opportunity to do so, we have a requirement to do so. the requirement and foundation of national power is ultimately economic in terms of global influence. and in terms of supporting the military. we have, i think, members of the house will step up in the coming months. >> how did you look at your surplus of the united states? do they say that we have america under control because of the treasury? >> superposition to the united states is very important. it is very decisive. so there is no intention for us with this economic relationship. >> i'm going to open it up to the floor. we have four microphones around the room. josh grogan is over here. >> thank you very muc
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4